Hate Crime
October 23rd, 2005 | by Craig |NOT IN OUR TOWN is the inspiring documentary film about the residents of Billings, Montana who responded to an upsurge in hate violence by standing together for a hate-free community. In 1993, hate activities in Billings reached a crescendo. KKK fliers were distributed, the Jewish cemetery was desecrated, the home of a Native American family was painted with swastikas, and a brick was thrown through the window of a six-year-old boy who displayed a Menorah for Hanukkah.
Rather than resigning itself to the growing climate of hate, the community took a stand.
That is the lead from this article. After these incidents, the community held rallies, marches and the whole shebang. The movement in Billings gained some notoriety, and is something this town should be proud of.
I’ve been following a discussion elsewhere about “hate crimes.”
If you want to see what the Web says about what defines a hate crime, look here.
One snippet of definition reads as follows, and I think would be the generally accepted idea: “acts committed because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.”
Now. Here’s something that I want you to think about. Look at the following pictures and ask yourself, “If these were painted on a synagogue, mosque or predominantly black church, would it be considered a hate crime?”
I think it’s safe to say that most people would consider the incidents above to be a hate crime.
Following in the wake of that, the proper outrage would be mustered, editorial pages would be filled with calls for tolerance, the LTTE page would be filled with much hand-wringing and navel-gazing and, if it was deemed necessary, the marchers would take to the streets.
Agreed?
I took these pictures Saturday morning after a phone call from Randy.
The graffiti was painted on a Catholic church right here in Billings “Not In Our Town” Montana on Thursday night. Other vandalism to the church in recent weeks has included damage in the graveyard and lights broken around the church.
I can’t vouch for the print version, but look at the Gazette Articles here and here.
Having trouble with the links? That’s because there are no stories.
(Edit: Well, they finally did get a story in. You can find it here.)
Granted: KULR-8 has a video segment here, and KTVQ has a blurb here (on the front page as of this writing).
Now, having said all that, do I think that this was a hate crime? No. What kind of dumbass paints a star on a Catholic church? I’m not sure how I’m supposed to be offended by that. Maybe it was supposed to be the satanic symbol, but he was too stupid to draw the star upside-down. (Oops. I’m engaging in some gender profiling here. Best report me forthwith.) So, they’re not only shitheads, but illiterate shitheads at that.
Most likely, it was some shitheads whose parents think the sun rises and sets on them and that they should be their kids buddies and not their parents.
The only point I’m trying to make is that sometimes we are very quick to brand something as a hate crime for one reason or another, yet similar circumstances don’t warrant the same attention. To me, this is a bad case of some animals being more equal than others.
I’d be willing to bet that a lot of what is passing for “hate crimes” is just J. Random Shithead acting up because he and his buddies have nothing better to do on a weeknight.
Something to think about.
12 Responses to “Hate Crime”
By Amber on Oct 24, 2005 | Reply
What stands out to me here are several things:
1. The use of the “r” word. Apparently there is some sort of issue here other than the religious denomination of the folks that go to church at this particular establishment.
2. “Bitches?” Generally, this word is still used in reference to women and/or particularily effeminate men. Maybe that is biased of me to say but the connotation remains, thus, odd choice when picking on a religion primarily represented by old white dudes.
3. I have my own theories on why you prolly won’t see stories on this. (Feel free to disagree.) People as a general rule don’t feel the overwhelming need to help out, rally behind, and/or “save” groups of people that don’t seem to “need” it. The Catholic Church is a dang powerful lil’ entity comprised of the rich ol’ white guys I mentioned in the prior comment. Who the Hell goes to bat for the oppressed and picked on upper middle class conservative right wing? No one, that’s who, cuz they just don’t need it. You make PBS films about the people that need the saving, the people that need the leg up, and the folks that can’t defend themselves on their own. Now, don’t get me wrong I’ve rarely been more proud of a community than I was during the time of the NIOT events. A deep sense of character, compassion and caring was displayed, just don’t expect to see it in this case.
By Craig on Oct 24, 2005 | Reply
Amber–
1.) Pius is one of the more well-heeled parishes in Billings, so I suspect you are correct.
2.) My take is that “rich bitches” was one epithet, rather than two.
3.) I think you’re right with this one, too. Like I say, I’m not particularly outraged by the non-coverage of this, but it’s an interesting thought experiment to think about what might happen in other circumstances.
By Wulfgar on Oct 24, 2005 | Reply
I hold to a few truths, one of which is this: never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity. This was not a hate crime.
However, as up-front as this anectdote may be, there are hate crimes that deserve more weight in sentencing than the standard crime of type. I refer you to David Niewert for much better support then I could give here.
By Craig on Oct 24, 2005 | Reply
Rob, I’ll admit up front that I haven’t read any of Neiwert’s printed stuff, but I have checked in on his blog from time to time.
To me, he reads like there are fascists around every corner out here in the west, and it could be anyone to the right of Stalin. Too much for me, really.
The crux of the matter is a little concept called “equal protection under the law.” If someone kills me in a robbery, my life is, by definition, worth less than someone who happens to be in a protected group.
Lady justice should be blind in all respects; no exceptions. Period.
By starbird on Oct 25, 2005 | Reply
Those who wrate that junk should be mae to clean it off with a toothbrush and teacup of water and make them pay for it as well
By Jeff on Oct 25, 2005 | Reply
“The crux of the matter is a little concept called “equal protection under the law.†If someone kills me in a robbery, my life is, by definition, worth less than someone who happens to be in a protected group.”
What would these protected groups be? I assume you can point me to a hate statute that defines them.
By Craig on Oct 26, 2005 | Reply
You make a good point, Jeff. However, I’d be willing to bet that if you took a look at hate crime statistics you’d be hard pressed to find a lot of hate crimes against whites, males, heterosexuals, or any combination thereof.
While it may not be codified, hate crime legislation does create de facto protected groups.
After all, when was the last time you heard anyone wanting hate crime legislation for the above-mentioned groups.
To be honest, I think that people should be punished harshly for stuff like painting swastikas on synagogues. It’s pretty clear that there is some hatred going on there. By and large, though, it seems like we should just enforce the laws on the books. Violence is violence no matter who is the perpetrator and victim, and hurts us all.
By Jeff on Oct 26, 2005 | Reply
Just to nitpick, you really shouldn’t include males in that group. General gender-based hate crimes are fairly rare going either way, as far as I know. Males are quite prevalent when combined with black, homosexual, etc.
Your comments strike me as “diversity logic,” as you would put it. It’s like saying because womemen are the victims of 90% of rapes, rape laws create a de facto protected group.
Hate crimes are worse than other crimes involving similar acts. They’re similar to terrorism: they create fear and intimidation and attempt to violently coerce groups of people. This is different than a typical vandalism incident. Hate crimes are also, from what I’ve read, more psychologically damaging than other crimes. Since the crimes are worse than similar acts without the hate motive, I think they should be punished more harshly.
I think we can agree that justice isn’t about punishing all groups equally for all crimes. It’s about punishing the culpable individuals based upon the severity of their crimes.
By Craig on Oct 27, 2005 | Reply
Rape is a different animal, Jeff. You can define it: basically, intercourse without consent.
Simple, clear.
How do you define hate? What about the level of hate? How do you divine someone’s intentions?
I can see your point, and that’s long been the argument for hate crimes. I’m not saying that, by and large, they are a Bad Thing™.
My point is that we can be very quick to call something a hate crime, when in fact, it is nothing but pure shitheadedness.
By Brett on Oct 27, 2005 | Reply
I’ll try and weigh in with some thoughts on this later, but someone asked about the statute regarding hate crimes… Here it is:
MCA 45-5-221 Malicious intimidation or harassment relating to civil or human rights
(1) A person commits the offense of malicious intimidation or harassment when, because of another person’s race, creed, religion, color, national origin, or involvement in civil rights or human rights activities, he purposely or knowingly, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend:
(a) causes bodily injury to another;
(b) causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another; or
(c) damages, destroys, or defaces any property of another or any public property.
(2) For purposes of this section, “deface†includes but is not limited to cross burning or the placing of any word or symbol commonly associated with racial, religious, or ethnic identity or activities on the property of another person without his or her permission.
(3) A person convicted of the offense of malicious intimidation or harassment shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 5 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 or both.
By Jeff on Oct 27, 2005 | Reply
“Rape is a different animal, Jeff. You can define it: basically, intercourse without consent.
Simple, clear.”
Which has nothing to do with my point about protected groups.
“How do you define hate? What about the level of hate? How do you divine someone’s intentions?”
Hate may not be the most accurate word. A hate crime simply means crime motivated by the victim’s race, religion, etc. It is undoubtedly difficult to determine if a crime is a hate crime. As far as I know, they tend to rely on statements during and around the time of crime. I tend to think that gives us fewer hate crimes than there actually are, but it’s the best we can do.
“I can see your point, and that’s long been the argument for hate crimes. I’m not saying that, by and large, they are a Bad Thingâ„¢.”
Well, I generally take someone as meaning hate crime laws are bad when he says they’re unconstitutional.
“My point is that we can be very quick to call something a hate crime, when in fact, it is nothing but pure shitheadedness.”
That may be true in regard to outside observers, but with the difficulty in prosecuting hate crimes, I don’t think it translates into criminals being undeservedly convicted of hate crimes.